Spirit Airlines began service out of MSP this past week. They're supposed to help drive down prices, though one of their initial markets will be to Chicago where there's already fairly decent competition. Spirit is heavily into the a la carte add-on business, where even putting a carry-on into an overhead bin costs $45 (which will go up to $100 in November). Pretty easy to negate any savings from the lower up-front cost...

Looks like Spirit Airlines is expanding it's service from MSP, adding non-stops to Dallas and Ft. Lauderdale. The Fort Lauderdale service is key because it opens us up to their Caribbean routes via one-stop flights.

Just a thread for MSP Airport and possibly MN aviation topics.
A good resource to follow is http://www.mspspotters.net/ for airline service changes.

Curious about the plans to expand MSP past the G concourse... it sounded like a new international hall would be built there, and even new front of house stuff like departures/arrivals lanes and ticketing space. Additionally the access road to MN-5 would be aligned slightly southward. These plans are on MSP's FAA master plan but I think the timeline has to be pushed back at this point.

Secondly, I saw a photo from the early 60s when the Lindbergh terminal originally opened, and it had the same E and F concourses... I wonder if these have ever been renovated, or if they would be replaced someday with something like a long satellite between the terminal and 4-22.

Finally, I know the plan is long dead, but does anyone know where to find plans or drawings of the original post-dual-track expansion plan which would have extended the access road to the interchange at 77 and 62?

mattaudio wrote:Secondly, I saw a photo from the early 60s when the Lindbergh terminal originally opened, and it had the same E and F concourses... I wonder if these have ever been renovated, or if they would be replaced someday with something like a long satellite between the terminal and 4-22.

When E and F opened, they were only one level with ground boarding (before jetbridges). The current concourse level was essentially built on the roof of the original structures. Not sure what year this was done.

MSP airport is planning a $1.5 billion expansion. The description, from the 7th & 8th paragraphs in this Strib article:

The plan calls for remodeling concourses and building a new international wing and a parking ramp and paying for it with airport revenues, mostly from passengers and airlines. The expansion would benefit the airport's dominant carrier, Delta Air Lines, by consolidating its operations into one terminal and moving other major airlines to a less popular one with low-cost carriers.

The airport is recommending the move over a less expensive expansion that would leave United and other major airlines with Delta and its partners at the Lindbergh terminal and keep low-cost carriers at the Humphrey terminal.

Assuming that the airport actually attracts more traffic, it will create a lot more noise in residential areas nearby. 1,131 more homes are expected to get soundproofing, though homes that have already received some soundproofing won't get any upgrades.

The FAA's new NextGen air traffic control system could have a major impact on increasing the capacity of the runways at MSP, as well as potentially decreasing the sound impacts (at least for landing aircraft -- probably doesn't impact those taking off).

at the pace delta is down playing msp.......doubt expansion is required

I don't think that Delta is downplaying MSP -- they've cut their overall flying across the board, but I don't think that MSP has been disproportionately impacted (the same can't be said for some of their other hubs).

Tyler wrote:IMO the most immediate need is the customs / border protection facilities. It's the only area at MSP that is so obviously inadequate.

That's probably the biggest drawback of our two-terminal setup as well... CBP is spread out between two facilities. Delta at one facility, and SY/Iceland/any future non-Skyteam carriers like BA or LH at T2 CBP. Wonder how difficult this is in real life.

Check the "Executive Summary" link on the page from the link. At the very end there is a diagram of all the proposed changes.

Is this extra capacity capable of using only 3 runways like we currently have? I didn't see anything regarding adding a 4th runway.....I know most of the biggest U.S. airports have 4+ runways nowadays. There's really not room though at MSP.

The 4th runway was finished in 2005. It was said at that time the current setup should handle 700,000 - 750,000 yearly movements without causing unacceptable delays. The projection for 2030 is 630,837 total movements so still well under capacity.

Last edited by Tyler on September 18th, 2012, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Looks like they plan to slightly move the access road interchange (including removing the turnaround bridge built <15 years ago) ... I hope they use the opportunity to connect airport traffic to eastbound MN 5 on the righthand side instead of the left, as this would eliminate a lot of weaving. Here's an idea:

This also eliminates any weaving between Post Road, MN 5 and the terminal. The Post Road bridge is probably 50+ years old and I'd replace it with a SPUI. The natural configuration of a SPUI would also lend itself to a terminal turnaround with correct lane placement and no weaving.

Tyler wrote:The 4th runway was finished in 2005. It was said at that time the current setup should handle 700,000 - 750,000 yearly movements without causing unacceptable delays. The projection for 2030 is 630,837 total movements so still well under capacity.

I guess I didn't realize that the perpendicular runway (the most perpendicular one, anyways) was an actual runway, because it looks like it kind of intersects with the two "Main" runways.

I'm still curious about the original early-90s vision for MSP expansion, with an access road connecting to the interchange of 77 and 62 (I remember as a kid seeing a drawing in the Strib that was really cool).

Also, one thing that continues to fascinate me is the difference in design and use between airports (and terminals) that cater primarily to O&D versus connecting operations. T1 is primarily a connecting operation, and I bet moving non-SkyTeam out would reduce O&D functions in the terminal by 30-50%. Terminal 2 is nearly 100% O&D and needs many more O&D facilities, whereas T1 mainly needs ramp space, gate space, and easy connectivity between gates. That's why this plan to create a new international arrivals area (in essence another quasi-terminal with departure/arrival roads, check in, bag claim, etc) would add a third such area to the mix. LAX, largely an O&D airport, has a similar but bigger layout to the logical extension of T1 in this regard, with many terminals arranged in a U shape.

We've done a good job of making our airport work, but it's really not laid out that well compared to peer airports. Ideally there would be easy tram connection on the sterile side between all concourses, and ideally there would be only one area for O&D functions.

Yes, the long intersecting runway (4/22) is an actual runway, but it doesn't do much to increase capacity, since the two parallel runways have to be shut down in order to use it. I don't think it is used much at all currently, Northwest and Delta used it once per day for the 747 departure to Tokyo, which needed a long runway, but the current 777 usually uses one of the parallel runways, I believe. That being said, I don't think MSP is close to runway capacity.

One capacity issue that I wonder about is the availability of gates for mainline aircraft. Delta has recently announced that they will be significantly reducing the amount of flying being done by 50 seat regional aircraft by regional carriers. They plan to increase the use of larger regional jets, as well as aircraft such as the AirTran 717s they are acquiring from Southwest. Concourses A and B seem to be built almost exclusively for 50 seaters and turboprops. I wonder if the increased use of larger aircraft, as well as a (hopefully) slow but steady increase in traffic, will mean that Delta will need the gates that would be vacated by non-Skyteam carriers that move to Terminal 2. I would assume that Alaska Airlines and Great Lakes Airlines would stay at Terminal 1.

I know a lot of people seem to think that Delta will severely cut MSP, but I don't see it that way. The merger hasn't been great for this state, but other hubs such as Cincinnati and Memphis have fared much worse. I think MSP will remain a large domestic hub, with some limited international routes, where appropriate.